Just so the record is clear, Eddie, do you really believe that IDists at the DI don’t equivocate over ‘varieties of design’?
If you want to be impressive as staying on-topic about ‘reclaiming design’, then it would help if you start talking about non-IDT examples of ‘design’, ‘design theories’ and/or ‘design arguments’. That’s when it’ll start to appear that you have interest to stay on-topic (and please stop writing lengthy posts on Wedge or Dover trial, even if provoked).
Also, a friendly suggestion: don’t tell BioLogos what it should do to incorporate “Intelligent Design” jargon into its approach. It is unbecoming and looks forced. And, it’s simply not going to happen.
“Nothing is stopping them from incorporating the word ‘design’ into their self-definition: they could call their position “EDDC” – “Evolutionary, Design-Driven Creationism.”” - Eddie
That sounds like something that might not catch on, just maybe not. Hmm…why not? Because it is clunky and looks awful to say. Perhaps that’s your most elevated vision of collaboration between BioLogos and the DI, Eddie. Trust me; it’s not very attractive to look at.
“The Discovery Institute has no legal monopoly on the English word ‘design.’ The problem, as I’ve pointed out, is that TE leaders…” - Eddie
That’s true, i.e. the DI has ‘no legal monopoly’ over the term. Check.
Yet the Discovery Institute has gone to great lengths (not only with PR, but with its Fellows) to capture the word ‘design’ for itself, to try to carve out a ‘design niche’ as a way of opposing (neo-)Darwinian evolutionary biology. Do you deny this, Eddie? (Niche construction, btw, a pretty cool idea which arose within the general evolutionary paradigm.)
Above I mentioned Dembski’s books, which conveniently left the ‘Intelligence’ out of the title. O’Leary equivocated about ‘varieties of design’ just a couple of days ago on ENV, referring to someone who is not a ‘design theorist,’ when she really should have said ‘not an IDist.’ This kind of stuff happens OFTEN in the DI’s communication strategy, by its Fellows and among IDists. ‘Just design’ is on intelligentdesign.org’s ‘About’ page, as well as Uncommon Descent’s. One only has to open their eyes to frankly and honestly admit the equivocation of ‘varieties of design’, which comes across as ‘claiming design’ for the IDM.
And let’s be clear. There are no such people as ‘TE/EC leaders,’ to be likened to the ‘DI leaders’ of the IDM. The latter fund the main texts and participate in the PR that distributes, agitates and drums up support from young people for IDism. People who endorse TE/EC [notice that TE/EC doesn’t do things by itself, Eddie] don’t need ‘leadership’ for a view that is so widely accepted, i.e. across the Catholic and Orthodox churches, and among many mainstream Protestant churches. They just try to do good, responsible science, if they are laypersons who are scientists. It really is an ‘evangelical thing’ historically where YECism and now IDism have mainly taken hold, and mostly (but not exclusively, of course), in one specific country: the USA.
“the representation that somehow ID people have monopolized the word ‘design’ and the concepts connected with it, so that TE/EC is [sic: people are] tongue-tied to express the idea of design, is simply a non-starter.” - Eddie
It simply doesn’t seem like evidence of equivocation and ‘claiming design’ by the DI is something that you like to admit in public, Eddie. But trust me, the evidence is there. And no, people who accept TE/EC do not appear ‘tongue-tied,’ but rather it seems to me they may be somewhat embarrassed by the fact that new ‘radical, revolutionary IDists!’ have come to the surface among them, especially in their evangelical churches. It’s probably a shock to try to deal with this occurrence, which actually plays out a bit like espionage, given the DI’s cloak and dagger tactics (which I’m privy to, having witnessed them inside the DI). Is trying to ‘claim design’ for their scientistic ideology of IDism while disrespecting or simply ignoring all of the other ‘varieties of design’ out there, as well as the sincere wishes of other theists, e.g. the theistic design argument, in any way wrong or embarrassing to IDists?
“There is a massive basis in the evangelical, Reformation tradition for seeing God as a designer. The avoidance of the term “design” and kindred words is therefore no religious necessity, but a deliberate TE/EC [sic: peoples’] habit, chosen entirely by the TE/EC leaders themselves, under no duress or compulsion.” - Eddie
A massive basis or a grossly exaggerated focus on ‘design/Design’ particularly by the IDM? Have you ever taken a pause in your pro-IDT strategies, Eddie, to consider that a preference to ‘avoid’ the term ‘design’ has basically been forced on people by the damaging deeds and attitudes of the DI and its IDM? Leaders around the world that I’ve met, both scholars and those in the Church, who are certainly not ‘Darwinists’ and many of whom think carefully through issues involving evolution and creation, origins and process of change over time, nature, culture, society, politics, religion, etc. have told me directly that ‘design’ has been unfortunately stained by the DI and IDM. Have you never met someone like that, Eddie?
If not, then maybe where you live the influence of YECists and now more recently IDists is not as obvious, serious or troubling as it is for people like Brad (and probably several others at BioLogos), whose story in this thread is quite intriguing. Is that even possibly true, perhaps based on location, Eddie? Please be charitable with the fact that others might just see and experience things differently than you and have a legitimate cause for concern among evangelicals that you don’t share.
As for ‘kindred words,’ whatever those are, I really do hope the IDM doesn’t stain them with its revolutionary ideology too!
“the good words are already used by movements opposed to our position. This puts us in an awkward spot.” – Brad (OP)
Yes, though ‘BioLogos’ is your key neologism. It demonstrates you are a ‘science & faith’ organisation upfront and openly, unlike the DI, which is secretive and ‘nuanced’ about it. If the DI finally came clean admitted IDT is a triadic ‘science, philosophy and theology/worldview’ topic first and foremost, it would lose much of its appeal among evangelicals (but might gain some surprising and curious things alongside).
“They can ‘reclaim’ design any time they want; all they have to is start expressing their Christian faith…” - Eddie
As I’ve said to you in the past, Eddie, which you’ve avoided without explanation; they don’t want ‘design’ for their own. They want it to not be abused by the DI and used as a backdoor apologetics attempt to trick people into conversion to the Christian faith with the appearance of a ‘scientific inference.’ By distinguishing ‘design argument’ from IDT, warning is made effectively against this.
“Go ahead, IDists, try to build IDT and discover the ‘proofs’ you seek ‘in nature’, the supposed empirical evidence (i.e. not just probabilities), if you want. But do not pretend to control or even speak for a theistic design argument within your ‘strictly natural science’.”
There has been no empirical proof offered about the when, where and how of the so-called “Intelligent Designing” ‘in nature’ by scientists. IDists express a passionate ideology that is actually just chasing shadows dressed up as ‘scientifically’ as possible. But then again, Eddie, as you’ve said here before at BioLogos, you personally don’t insist on the ‘scientificity’ of IDT, so you’re really not defending or properly representing the DI’s ‘strictly scientific theory,’ though you regularly write of what ‘ID says’ and ‘ID affirms.’
“if they are so eager to reclaim the word ‘design,’ they don’t just start using it as part of the description of their view of evolutionary creation.” - Eddie
Above I quoted a couple of BioLogos’ uses of the term ‘design’ in post #75. Did you miss that, Eddie? Sure, you can choose to avoid admitting they already use the term ‘design’ or admit it, then holler for them to use it more widely and aggressively than they already do. But let us be clear, and this is important: they are rightfully referring to ‘design argument’ and NOT IDT. BioLogos accepts ‘intelligent design,’ but rejects IDism. That seems to me a responsible, coherent and comprehensible position.
What more does one need to see that making a distinction between these two ‘varieties of design’ / ‘design arguments’ is both necessary and helpful and that the DI should thus finally accept that and publically acknowledge it? Do you think the DI ever will, Eddie? I sure hope Jantzen’s book can help in this endeavour. Thanks to Brad and Jim for bringing it up.
Besides, how far into absurdity do IDists want to go with design-centrism and design-obsession (leading to a kind of ‘Expelled Syndrome’): Do they wish to propose changing “This is the day that the Lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad in it” into “This is the day that the Lord has designed, let us rejoice and be glad in it”? Please eventually get over the fact that BioLogos people are quite clearly not ‘obsessed’ or ‘so eager’ with over-using the term ‘design/Design’ like IDists are and consider if a healthier, more productive and balanced life may await you post-IDism.
That’s likely coming to the end of what I can say, suggest and hope for if Eddie simply won’t openly acknowledge the DI’s equivocation over ‘varieties of design’ here at BioLogos.
p.s. @Joao, in case it helps, I can confirm that the DI currently has no ‘explicit’ policy of getting IDT taught in schools. They walked that dog back, especially since Dover, but even a couple of years before it. What they certainly are very active in doing now, however, is getting IDT taught to home-schoolers, in church groups and at Sunday schools, e.g. with DI Press published textbook, workbook & DVD: “Discovering Intelligent Design” (2013). Not the same as the University of Chicago Press 1995 book “Discovering Design” eds. Richard Buchanan and Victor Margolin, which is, yet again, NOT an IDist book, but rather a book about other ‘varieties of design.’ What do you know; sometimes the DI gets it right to distinguish ‘design’ from ‘Intelligent Design.’ Let’s see more effort at that non-equivocation!